Re Computer Accounting And Tax Pty Ltd - [2020] WASC 108

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   RE COMPUTER ACCOUNTING AND TAX PTY LTD; EX PARTE MERVYN JONATHAN KITAY in his capacity as liquidator of COMPUTER ACCOUNTING AND TAX PTY LTD (In Liq) and COMPUTER ACCOUNTING AND TAX PTY LTD (In Liq) [2020] WASC 108
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   10 & 17 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   31 MARCH 2020
PUBLISHED           :   31 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   COR 2 of 2010

EX PARTE
MERVYN JONATHAN KITAY in his capacity as liquidator of COMPUTER ACCOUNTING AND TAX PTY LTD (In Liq) and COMPUTER ACCOUNTING AND TAX PTY LTD (In Liq)
Applicants

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for access to transcript of hearing in 2010 - Whether required for defence of notice of motion for contempt - Application dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants	:	Mr D John
Interested Party	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicants	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Interested Party	:	In Person

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Athens v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWCA 317; (2005) 64 NSWLR 58
Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 217; (2002) 27 WAR 39
Little v Lewis [1987] VR 798
Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd v Branir Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 629; (2003) 129 FCR 558
Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 38

HILL J:

On 8 October 2019, Mervyn Jonathan Kitay in his capacity as liquidator of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (In Liq) and Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (in Liq) filed a notice of motion for punishment of Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger for contempt of court.
Particulars of the notice of contempt were annexed to the notice of motion. In par 12 of the particulars, it is alleged that Mrs Frigger is in contempt of court by reason of:
(a)her disobedience of orders 2 and 4 of Master Sanderson's orders of 15 May 2014;
(b)her disobedience of orders for confidentiality made by Acting Master Chapman on 17 January 2012.
On 5 March 2020, Mrs Frigger applied for an order to obtain a copy of the transcript of a hearing before Acting Master Chapman on 17 January 2012.
For the reasons which follow, it is my view that Mrs Frigger's application should be dismissed.

Relevant Procedural History

This application is the latest application in a very long history of applications between these parties. As has been noted by numerous members of this court, there is a long history of acrimony between Mr and Mrs Frigger and Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd and the liquidator of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd, over more than 10 years.
These proceedings (COR 2 of 2010) were commenced on 8 January 2010 by originating process and sought an order for the winding up of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (CAT).
The application came on for hearing before Justice Simmonds on 20 and 21 January 2010. On…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Computer Accounting And Tax Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] WASC 108
Decision Date: 31 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application by a party seeking access to the transcript of a hearing that had taken place in 2010. The applicant argued that the transcript was necessary for the defence of a notice of motion for contempt. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, and the applicant was seeking to have the transcript made available to them for the purpose of defending against the motion for contempt.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to access the transcript of the 2010 hearing, and if so, whether such access was necessary for the defence of the notice of motion for contempt. The court had to consider the relevant rules and precedents regarding access to transcripts and the circumstances in which such access might be granted. The court also had to consider the specific facts of the case and whether they warranted the release of the transcript.

In determining the application, the court considered the relevant rules and precedents regarding access to transcripts. The court found that while there was a general right of access to transcripts for the purpose of appeal, there was no such right for the purpose of defending a notice of motion for contempt. The court also considered the specific facts of the case and found that they did not warrant the release of the transcript. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed as it turned on its own facts and did not meet the threshold for granting access to the transcript.

The final orders of the court were that the application for access to the transcript of the 2010 hearing was dismissed. The court found that the applicant was not entitled to access the transcript for the purpose of defending the notice of motion for contempt, and that the specific facts of the case did not warrant the release of the transcript. The decision was based on the court's interpretation of the relevant rules and precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders